Arrested at the RNC

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
these people are stirring shit up plain and simple. If you hang out in the middle of crowd that is throwing rocks, piss, and shit on people, vandalizing property, and assulting people, you better accept being caught in the fray.

They are down there for the sole purpose of catching cops doing something wrong. You think they aren’t stirring shit up to get some good coverage? Cops are even being assulted when they get isolated.

Wait, so you think the media was purposefully “stirring shit up” to get coverage? That’s an amazing claim, do you have any proof?

Dhickey, do you have proof of this?
[/quote]

Nice dodge. kiddo. Big tough internet warrior gets faced, and he hasn’t the balls to step up and admit he was wrong.

I’m not surprised.

22

what the hell are you talking about?

23

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
what the hell are you talking about?[/quote]

Now you are faking stupid? Either you are a profoundly gifted thespian, or you aren’t acting at all.

24

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Wait, so you think the media was purposefully “stirring shit up” to get coverage? That’s an amazing claim, do you have any proof?

Dhickey, do you have proof of this?
[/quote]

You do understand this is a forum where people post there opinions and observations and not just historical fact, don’t you. I am commenting on what I have seen every day all day for the week here in MN.

I am not prosecuting them in court. Maybe you should ask that the moderator/judge strike my comments from the record. Then he can instruct the others on this forum to disreguard my statement when they deliberate on case.

To answer your question, no. I do not have proof that ,beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendants’ intent to stir shit up.

25

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

Wait, so you think the media was purposefully “stirring shit up” to get coverage? That’s an amazing claim, do you have any proof?

Dhickey, do you have proof of this?

You do understand this is a forum where people post there opinions and observations and not just historical fact, don’t you. I am commenting on what I have seen every day all day for the week here in MN.

I am not prosecuting them in court. Maybe you should ask that the moderator/judge strike my comments from the record. Then he can instruct the others on this forum to disreguard my statement when they deliberate on case.

To answer your question, no. I do not have proof that ,beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendants’ intent to stir shit up.

[/quote]

Mate, the reason I asked is because that was quite the claim. I thought you might have had heard something I had not.

There are definitely some wackos in MN right now, but conflating “the press” with “wackos” without any proof is pretty dishonest.

26

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Mate, the reason I asked is because that was quite the claim. I thought you might have had heard something I had not.

There are definitely some wackos in MN right now, but conflating “the press” with “wackos” without any proof is pretty dishonest.

[/quote]

Do you have any proof that I am being dishonest? Do you have proof that wackos don’t know how to opperate a camera?

What do think happens when you put a camera on bunch of wackos? I don’t know if you have kids or not but it’s much the same as paying attention to a 3 year old when they are throwing a tantrem. The more attention to give them, the worse the tantrem.

Anyone with half a brain knows that running into a crowd of idiot rioters with a camera is only going to insite them even more.

Again, I support their right (press) to do so, but you can’t bitch about being caught in the middle if you put yourself in the middle.

27

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Mate, the reason I asked is because that was quite the claim. I thought you might have had heard something I had not.

There are definitely some wackos in MN right now, but conflating “the press” with “wackos” without any proof is pretty dishonest.

Do you have any proof that I am being dishonest? [/quote]

Your first post on this thread, intentionally or not, was dishonest. You threw an accusation without proof and conflated two groups. I’m not trying to be mean, this is what you did. I asked honest questions, “do you have proof,” because it was such a wild claim.

[quote] Do you have proof that wackos don’t know how to opperate a camera?

What do think happens when you put a camera on bunch of wackos? I don’t know if you have kids or not but it’s much the same as paying attention to a 3 year old when they are throwing a tantrem. The more attention to give them, the worse the tantrem.

Anyone with half a brain knows that running into a crowd of idiot rioters with a camera is only going to insite them even more.

Again, I support their right (press) to do so, but you can’t bitch about being caught in the middle if you put yourself in the middle.[/quote]

I support the freedom of speech and the press. If these press members were simply arrested for reporting a protest, that is wrong. If they were “inciting” something, that is wrong and the arrests were warranted.

However, giving media coverage to a group that is protesting is not “inciting” anything. The protesters have the right to the freedom of speech and the press has the right to cover it.

Let’s be clear, if the press broke laws, they deserve to be arrested and charged. But covering a protest (or a riot)is not a crime. I don’t much like these extreme left-wing news organizations, what they say, or how they say it, but I fully support their right to speak and to be covered by the press.

28

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Do you have any proof that I am being dishonest?

Your first post on this thread, intentionally or not, was dishonest. You threw an accusation without proof and conflated two groups. I’m not trying to be mean, this is what you did. I asked honest questions, “do you have proof,” because it was such a wild claim.
[/quote]
No proof does not equal dishonest. If I can’t provide proof of someone’s intent does that mean there was no intent? I stated my opinion based on the news coverage I have seen here in MN for the last week. Don’t know what else to tell you mate.

[quote]

I support the freedom of speech and the press. If these press members were simply arrested for reporting a protest, that is wrong. If they were “inciting” something, that is wrong and the arrests were warranted.
[/quote] They were in the middle of a protest that got out of hand. If they are in the middle of a protest and they don’t respond to police order with the rest of them they will be treated like the rest of them. Why so hard to understand? I don’t think you understand how handcuffed our police are over here. This isn’t China. They can’t beat the shit out of people over here for no reason.

We are not talking about protestors following the laws we have on protesting. The police don’t give shit if people protest or not. Their intent isn’t to break up peaceful protest. If the law is being broken and people are not obeying police orders to clear out then they take action. Again, I am not sure what you are not getting here?

[quote]
Let’s be clear, if the press broke laws, they deserve to be arrested and charged. But covering a protest (or a riot)is not a crime. I don’t much like these extreme left-wing news organizations, what they say, or how they say it, but I fully support their right to speak and to be covered by the press. [/quote]
Civil disobedience is civil disobedience. Doesn’t matter if they have a camera. They were in the middle of all of this, not a block away.

29

[quote]lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
lixy wrote:

“Hang out”? They’re reporters. Being present in dangerous places is what they do.

I didn’t say they couldn’t be there but they shouldn’t bitch about being caught in the maylay.

I see. By your logic, journalists operating a war zone “shouldn’t bitch about being” shot at.

You probably also think Amy Goodman and Allan Naim were behind the hundreds executed in the Dili massacre. And just to be sure nobody would know, they beat each other up.

Streeeeeeeeeetchhhhhhhhh

Yes. That was the point. It’s as ridiculous as thinking she’d be an agent provocateur just for coverage. She’s one of the most famous journalists in the entire world. She doesn’t give a rat’s ass about advertisers. And she certainly won’t be muzzled by governments.

Your accusation makes no sense.

Goodman is an outstanding journalist and questioning her ethics in this manner shows you know absolutely nothing about her or her work.

she wasn’t there. what’s your point?

Sure she was!

They sure as hell have shown a lot more restraint than I would. If these guys are going to act like a 3 year old throwing a tantrem, I would put them over my knee and spank their ass with my baton.

Yay for freedom of the press!

sorry should have specified that I meant the idiots that are breaking shit and assaulting people, not the reporters.

That’s slightly better.

On a related note, 8 protesters were charged with terrorism under the PATRIOT ACT. Don’t you feel safer?[/quote]

I need to wrap my brain around something here… The country you grew up in was so fucking bad, you had to leave it for the protection of a western country…Yet, all you can bitch piss an moan about a country you’ve never laid eye upon or set foot in and have no idea about…How does that work? Why don’t you bitch and about the piece of shit country Morocco is and shut the fuck up about the U.S. of which you have no actual clue?

Some friends of my brother went to Morocco for a little spring break vacation…They were kidnapped, but fortunately they escaped the same day…Nice place. Lot’s of violent assholes, I can’t imagine you do not want to live there since you love violent murderous assholes so much?

30

Dhickey, I don’t think we’re so far off, but to address your points.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Do you have any proof that I am being dishonest?

Your first post on this thread, intentionally or not, was dishonest. You threw an accusation without proof and conflated two groups. I’m not trying to be mean, this is what you did. I asked honest questions, “do you have proof,” because it was such a wild claim.

No proof does not equal dishonest. If I can’t provide proof of someone’s intent does that mean there was no intent? I stated my opinion based on the news coverage I have seen here in MN for the last week. Don’t know what else to tell you mate.
[/quote]

It was no proof + conflating two groups that makes me think you were being dishonest in the “intellectually dishonest” sense of the word. I don’t think you were lying, I think you were being misleading.

[quote]
I support the freedom of speech and the press. If these press members were simply arrested for reporting a protest, that is wrong. If they were “inciting” something, that is wrong and the arrests were warranted.
They were in the middle of a protest that got out of hand. If they are in the middle of a protest and they don’t respond to police order with the rest of them they will be treated like the rest of them. Why so hard to understand? I don’t think you understand how handcuffed our police are over here. This isn’t China. They can’t beat the shit out of people over here for no reason.

However, giving media coverage to a group that is protesting is not “inciting” anything. The protesters have the right to the freedom of speech and the press has the right to cover it.

We are not talking about protestors following the laws we have on protesting. The police don’t give shit if people protest or not. Their intent isn’t to break up peaceful protest. If the law is being broken and people are not obeying police orders to clear out then they take action. Again, I am not sure what you are not getting here?[/quote]

I fully agree, if the members of the press are breaking laws and not listening to the police, then they should be arrested. What I was getting at was that coverage does not equal inciting.

But covering civil disobedience is not civil disobedience as long as we agree on this then I think our positions are almost identical.

The claim is being made in the OP’s video is that the members of the media were compling with police. And that Ms. Goodman was arrested for requesting to talk to the commanding officer. While I don’t know if the claim made in the video is accurate, it is the original topic of discussion.

31

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

The claim is being made in the OP’s video is that the members of the media were compling with police. And that Ms. Goodman was arrested for requesting to talk to the commanding officer. While I don’t know if the claim made in the video is accurate, it is the original topic of discussion. [/quote]

Don’t know about Goodman. All I have seen is the protestors being warned to clear an area. Many of them do not including camera men trying to get the money shot by staying in the middle of it. This has been going on all week here and it’s all the local media is covering. If they are going to do this to get a great shot, fine but expect to get treated like anyone else. Even if you have press badge.

32

[quote]pat wrote:
I need to wrap my brain around something here… The country you grew up in was so fucking bad, you had to leave it for the protection of a western country… [/quote]

Protection? From what exactly? I’m hanging around here because this country is very good at what I do. Once I snatch that degree, the plan is to head back home.

I spent some time in the US. Granted, not much else besides tourism but…how is that relevant to this discussion again?

I do, I do. Browse a bit the Moroccan forums and blogs.

But if you’re interested in just how much I think the Moroccan regime is shitty, start a thread.

Hey, ho! I’ll shut up if I want to. It’s that pesky freedom of speech you may have heard of before.

Someone accused Amy Goodman of lying and stirring shit up to get good coverage, which is a very serious accusation considering the woman’s job. This is not about Americans or the US in general. It’s about the (ab)use of power by the authorities of a particular city.

Heh, that’s a first. At least, for me. Never heard of kidnapping taking place over there.

This is quite a serious matter and I would urge your brother’s friends to share that with the cops and get their embassy to follow through. I’ll bet you the perpetrators get caught within the week. If not, they should (threaten to) make a lot of noise about it.

The country can’t afford bad publicity at this point. Particularly not when its development is tied to tourism and delocalization.

I suppose you’re not talking panorama.

It’s a police state in every sense of the term. Most of the violence is inflicted by the state itself. The murder rate is negligible. We’re not even close to that of, say France or Italy - two countries which aren’t exactly South Africa or Mexico.

Crime is at its infancy over there. People are just starting to pull scams straight from the 19th century. Guns in the civilian population are practically non-existent. Up until last year, bank robberies were unheard of (I was literally bent in half when a bank was robbed with knives some months back).

The family is still a fundamental value. The country’s growth hovers around 10% (which is quite decent). So whether I’m after making money or living comfortably, it’s the place to be.

In the flip side, the political system is straight off the dark ages. It’s only slightly better than feodalism. It is changing, although very slowly (but to give credit where credit is due, there has been more progress in the last ten years in the human rights arena than in every Moroccan’s wildest dreams).

Half of the population is illiterate. The government is intrusive. Money is squandered and social services are terribly mismanaged. Corruption is rampant at all levels. The justice system discriminates, even on the books.

Seriously, start a thread if you’re interested. There’s a lot more to say.

33

[quote]lixy wrote:

Hey, ho! I’ll shut up if I want to. It’s that pesky freedom of speech you may have heard of before.
[/quote]

Which is not protected for you as you are not a citizen here…

34

[quote]pat wrote:
lixy wrote:

Hey, ho! I’ll shut up if I want to. It’s that pesky freedom of speech you may have heard of before.

Which is not protected for you as you are not a citizen here…[/quote]

Ha!

You’re thinking of the First Amendment. The First Amendment is a particular feature of the US Constitution and doesn’t have any legal force in other countries or apply to non-governmental entities in the United States.

(By virtue of the 14th Amendment, it applies to the States as well as to the federal government.) “Freedom of Speech”, on the other hand, is a value that exists independent of the US Constitution.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the constitutions of many other countries and in such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of which reads:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Now, shoo!

35

Did she or did she not refuse to disperse?

36

More local new on this today. 19 journalist were arrested along with others that were not obeying police orders. Some of them were local for NBC. They were not happy about being arrested but say that the police handled it well and processing went quick.

Evedently, the police are having issues with determining who are actually accredited new personnel. There are a ton of people running around with cameras and fake credentials.

37

More local new on this today. 19 journalist were arrested along with others that were not obeying police orders. Some of them were local for NBC. They were not happy about being arrested but say that the police handled it well and processing went quick.

Evedently, the police are having issues with determining who are actually accredited news personnel. There are a ton of people running around with cameras and fake credentials.

38

[quote]lixy wrote:
Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the constitutions of many other countries and in such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of which reads:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Now, shoo![/quote]

LMAO!! What the hell is the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”?

And who is stupid enough to whip that out if they are arrested in Mexico, or any 3rd world country for speaking their mind?

What a fucking joke.

39

[quote]rainjack wrote:

LMAO!! What the hell is the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”?
[/quote]

LMAO!! You seriously don’t know what that is?

(pssst wiki is your friend)

40

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
rainjack wrote:

LMAO!! What the hell is the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”?

LMAO!! You seriously don’t know what that is?

(pssst wiki is your friend)[/quote]

You need to learn to tell the difference between a rhetorical question, and a real question. But seeing as you haven’t learned reading comprehension yet, I doubt you are going to be going after the meaning of 4 syllable words anytime soon.